[HN Gopher] Koenigsegg's 2.0-liter no-camshaft engine makes 600 ...
___________________________________________________________________
Koenigsegg's 2.0-liter no-camshaft engine makes 600 horsepower
Author : zdw
Score : 286 points
Date : 2020-03-14 15:24 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.roadandtrack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.roadandtrack.com)
| fock wrote:
| So, this is all fascinating and nice advertisement for this
| racing company which might want to compete in Formula 1... But:
| what problem is actually solved by this thing?
| krak12 wrote:
| Its not a racing company, it's a boutique automaker, the beauty
| resides that they are not solving any problem. They are using
| their talents to push the automotive technology to the limits
| for the fun and glory. Your yoga-dog walking app solves a lot
| of problems I guess.
| olivermarks wrote:
| These engines remind me of the wankel rotary era.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine Great idea that
| really worked but let down by reliability issues. I hope the
| Koenigsegg gets into some sort of mass production so we can see
| how reliable and durable it is though!
| Hamuko wrote:
| > _I hope the Koenigsegg gets into some sort of mass
| production_
|
| Don't hold your breath.
| detaro wrote:
| Koenigsegg makes <100 cars a year afaik, and I doubt that'll
| change.
| olivermarks wrote:
| I meant the innovative new engine in a mass production car,
| not a luxury vehicle
| sorenjan wrote:
| Koenigsegg will work together with NEVS to make cheaper cars.
| Still close to $1 million, but their aim is to make more.
|
| And I think Christian said they were making 1 car per week at
| the moment.
|
| https://www.autoblog.com/2019/03/04/koenigsegg-affordable-
| su...
| m_a_g wrote:
| Currently, there is a 160% sales tax for vehicles that has an
| engine larger than 2.0 liters in where I live.
|
| This engine could be a game-changer in countries that have the
| same taxation. I wish this engine can become mainstream.
| louwrentius wrote:
| They will change the law to 1.99 Litre or less, it probably
| won't work.
| sk5t wrote:
| There are already plenty of good 2.0 liter engines that
| represent little compromise. If the tax regime hasn't
| adjusted to punish Audi S3 buyers, well, there would be even
| less to be gained by making special accommodations to tax a
| small handful of supercars based on displacement.
| gh123man wrote:
| It's even more impressive that this is only a three-cylinder
| engine. It is super exciting to see Freevalve in a production car
| (even though it is generally unobtainable for the vast majority
| of people). I have high hopes that this tech will be licensed out
| and used in more affordable ICE cars.
| yummypaint wrote:
| Yeah it seems like the tech could be used to target efficiency
| instead of performance and perhaps improve the small engines in
| hybrid cars.
| lgleason wrote:
| I wonder if this is an interference or non interference design.
| If it is the former, one glitch in the valve timing and the
| engine would need a rebuild. Hopefully it is the later.
| JanSolo wrote:
| It's interesting that in naturally aspirated mode, the engine
| creates around 280hp. That's right around what SUVs and
| Crossovers are currently producing. This engine has a real
| potential to be a game-changer; if the freevalve tech can be made
| cheap enough and reliable enough for mass production, it could
| really improve average efficiency and emissions for a large
| number of cars. Great Tech!
| kingkongjaffa wrote:
| Is the cost of the old parts being replaced more than the new
| ones in terms of the technologies being used?
|
| Mechanical cams are going to be more reliable than a pnuematic
| system.
|
| maintenance is going to be much different than the other 99.9%
| of cars that use a timing belt/chain.
|
| Skeptical that the incumbents like Bosch wouldn't have already
| tried this in some form they have the OEM EMS / fuel rail
| industry major market share.
|
| As with all things mass-auto it's down to unit price economics
| vs how desperately do we need to put this in the cars to meet
| emissions regs.
| busterarm wrote:
| Renault was racing camless engines with pneumatic actuators
| in Formula 1 in the 80s.
|
| This tech has a long history and research behind it.
| eanzenberg wrote:
| Racing engines last ~1000mi
| vvillena wrote:
| Not anymore. F1 cars use just 3 engines for the whole
| season. Lots of other categories use one single engine
| per seasone. The "one engine per event" era is long gone.
| DagAgren wrote:
| Internal combustion is over. There's no future to be improved
| in it, it's going away. We simply can't afford to use it any
| more, and it is being phased out.
| leetcrew wrote:
| the end is in sight, but we're still at least a couple
| decades away from having ICEs totally phased out. if we're
| gonna keep building new ones for a while, why not try to
| improve them?
| vardump wrote:
| You're right, but for wrong reasons. Internal combustion
| engines will go away, because electric vehicles' cost curve
| will destroy them.
|
| IIRC, batteries get 13% cheaper per year, and that means
| price halves every 5 years or so. Right now 1 kWh of
| batteries (including BMS) costs about $100. So in 2025 one
| kWh of batteries will probably cost only $50.
|
| Electric vehicles purchase price will simply be cheaper
| unless ICE vehicles get subsidies. At that point, for
| economical consideration you'll need to have pretty
| compelling reasons to buy an ICE vehicle.
|
| Ultimately even gas station network will be decimated and
| gradually fade away.
| perl4ever wrote:
| "in 2025 one kWh of batteries will probably cost only $50"
|
| https://xkcd.com/605/
| busterarm wrote:
| There are still areas where ICE will dominate simply
| because batteries aren't practical or economical, despite
| being a cheaper fuel.
|
| Extreme environments, heavy machinery, etc.
|
| ICE are never going away.
| grecy wrote:
| I agree ICE are never going away, but I do think we're
| seeing the last "innovations" on ICE engines.
|
| No OEM is going to sink billions into R&D when they know
| everything will go electric in the near future.
|
| So while you may be able to by an ICE Catapillar D10 or a
| John Deer Tractor or other machinery in 2050, I'd bet
| it's engine isn't any different to the 2020 version. Same
| goes for sports cars.
| DagAgren wrote:
| And?
| busterarm wrote:
| And I directly refuted your argument and this is all you
| have to say.
|
| I didn't even get into the laughable aspect of how 1/7th
| of the planet's population still lives _without
| electricity_.
|
| There's countries that do have electricity where their
| energy infrastructure and access is unstable (e.g.,
| Moldova).
|
| Most of those places can get some burnable fuel, but I'm
| sure they'd just love your argument that batteries will
| soon be the only game in town.
|
| The idea of ICE being a technological dead end is a
| spoiled person's fantasy.
| perl4ever wrote:
| I look at it a different way, from a first world
| perspective, the power still occasionally goes out. As a
| comfortably middle class American, you wouldn't say "I
| have a $200K house and it's the latest tech and therefore
| it must run only on electricity". For the sake of
| argument, let's say you don't use natural gas or heating
| oil. You still are not going to say "oh, I won't buy a
| Honda generator because it's more important to maintain
| my electrical purity than to not freeze after a storm".
|
| Not everybody needs or buys a generator, but there's no
| trend to eliminate them, and in the big picture, using
| them is the exception, so it's not what we should be
| focusing on to cut CO2 emission.
|
| So, my opinion is that most people who have a comfortable
| first world lifestyle in the long run will end up with
| PHEVs. Not as a transition to all-electric, because it's
| just as dumb to have a battery that goes 400 miles to
| avoid range anxiety as it is to have an ICE that makes
| 400 hp to avoid "acceleration anxiety". All people need
| is a very small ICE, a very small battery, and a fairly
| large electric motor.
|
| All the arguments about why pure electric vehicles are
| the future are based on emotional feelings about purity,
| not logic, I think.
| busterarm wrote:
| You are making a perfectly reasonable argument, yes. :)
| sojournerc wrote:
| Agreed. ICE will also gain a vintage appeal. I can
| imagine my grandchildren reacting in wonder to my
| "classic" jeep cherokee dinosaur juice guzzler.
|
| There will always be collectors and niche uses for ICE
| vehicles (e.g. backcountry 4x4) even if they get largely
| displaced by EV
| EL_Loco wrote:
| I wonder what will happen to gas prices by then. Will it
| be feasible to still drive daily in one, or just an hour
| of fun driving on the weekend?
| Theodores wrote:
| ICE technical advances are in the same territory as
| advances in CRT, film based photography and coiled coil
| light bulbs. Nobody took LCD screens, digital cameras and
| LED lights seriously in the 1990's but here we are today
| where we only use the new stuff.
|
| Flat panel yield was a problem in the 1990s, every screen
| had dead pixels. The magic of film grain and a Pentax SLR
| wasn't that special, kids today don't even know or care.
| The warm colours of old lightbulbs are forgotten too. Yet
| there was amazing analog engineering and precision mass
| manufacturing with these products.
|
| ICE is going that way. The yield on the battery part is
| being solved, aka range/price. For performance the
| electric motor has no equal and things like regen are
| game changing. In time ICE will have specialist
| applications such as for creating electricity to charge a
| battery in remote locations, that will be about it. The
| tech innovation and investment has moved on to electric
| power trains. The horse has gone and it is too late to
| shut the gate. Nostalgia is not enough for ICE
| particularly when the baby boomers have moved on.
| perl4ever wrote:
| "The warm colours of old lightbulbs are forgotten too"
|
| This is obviously not true; when I go to a hardware or
| home improvement store, there is all sorts of information
| on the color temperature and purported color reproduction
| quality of the light bulbs. And "warm white" LEDs that
| are supposed to imitate incandescent are ubiquitous.
| busterarm wrote:
| The kind of batteries that we're talking about simply do
| not operate outside of the 0-35 degree Celsius
| temperature range. It will never be "ICE to charge
| batteries" because the batteries will not cycle in those
| conditions. North of 16C is optimal. The limitation is
| the chemistry.
|
| If you look at the temperature variance across the
| planet, you'll realize that there's vast numbers of
| people for whom batteries are never going to be an
| option.
| ehnto wrote:
| The turbocharged peak power was said to come at 7500rpm, with
| peak torque of 443lb at 3000rpm which is pretty good! I would
| expect NA torque to be somewhere in the mid 200lb region, which
| is comparable to the 2020 Nissan Pathfinder in both V6 and I4
| petrol variants. The I4 Turbo diesel obviously putting out far
| more torque at lower RPM making it more usable. But there is no
| doubt that Koenigsegg has made a huge leap here. The only
| missing datapoint is reliability. How aggresive is the tuning
| on the engine to get these numbers and does that effect it's
| long term robustness?
| kingkongjaffa wrote:
| Just look at the cars they currently make. Highly tuned
| supercars not economical commuter vehicles.
|
| skeptical tech from one will transfer to the other.
|
| I used to work for a supercar company, our unit price made
| certain tech possible, not even thinkable for mass-auto.
| ehnto wrote:
| You're right, I wouldn't expect this level of performance
| from a commuter car with similar displacement.
|
| That said, Hyundai recently developed their Continuously
| Variable Valve Duration system, which looks to solve
| changing valve duration more affordably in an all
| mechanical system.
| ska wrote:
| There are a few of these valve systems around (if i
| recall correctly they've been around for decades,
| really).
|
| BMW started putting them in motorcycles recently.
| Animats wrote:
| Computer controlled valves are an old idea. It's been a "can be
| done, but not worth the trouble and added complexity" thing for
| years. This is more like the last gasp of fuel-powered supercars,
| as the IC engine people try to stay relevant.
| ufmace wrote:
| This is really cool tech, amazing that somebody's managed to get
| dynamic valve action working reliably. What I'm wondering,
| though, it what the benefit is of using it on a hybrid car.
|
| It sounds like they did connect the engine mechanically to the
| drivetrain, with the electric motors mostly assisting. But why
| not have it just directly drive a generator, with some decent
| sized batteries? An engine that only runs at full power at a
| single RPM to charge batteries doesn't benefit much from
| elaborate valve technology.
| forkexec wrote:
| Freevalve is awesome.
|
| https://www.freevalve.com
| jotm wrote:
| Looks amazing, I guess it simply wasn't possible (or extremely
| difficult and expensive) to create something like this before
| the advent of miniature+powerful computing. I wonder how else
| can ICE's be improved with more onboard processing power
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| Probably totally possible with late 80s tech in ECUs. They
| already had dynamic spark retardation and fuel maps that
| changed based on rpm/speed/other factors. Freevalve to me is
| another natural step after that. We already see dynamic valve
| timing with VVT and the like. Now it's just infinitly
| variable. Another benefit is that you are able to tune at all
| RPMs and produce more horse with less power. I love it
| tibbon wrote:
| I just got a Boxster, and while the engine in it is amazing, this
| would be a hell of a swap (not at all easy, perhaps next to
| impossible, but the idea of a 600hp engine that actually fits in
| the Boxster... whoa).
|
| Edit: I knew their cars were expensive, but it seems Koenigsegg
| cars start around 2mm and up to to 10mm? I'm gonna guess that
| there's zero chance of just buying an engine for $10k and
| throwing it in another car like an LS swap
| sudosysgen wrote:
| I think given the focus on ethanol and their request for
| partners they want this to be a mass market product
| leetcrew wrote:
| you would have to upgrade a lot of other parts in a boxster for
| it to be able to handle 600hp.
| djrogers wrote:
| Not really - the Boxster Spyder and Cayman GT4 variants are
| already in the 400s, and use transmissions capable of much
| much more than that (as seen in other Porsche vehicles).
| darksaints wrote:
| You could always do something like this, which definitely could
| fit in a boxster.
|
| https://emrax.com/e-motors/emrax-348/
| jacquesm wrote:
| Pancake axial flux is a really compact and powerful
| combination. If they ever get them weighing so little that
| they could be unsprung weight there will be a revolution in
| drive trains.
| andrepd wrote:
| >"We don't make pure electric cars because for the time being, we
| think they're too heavy, and they don't make a cool sound. And as
| long as we can be CO2 neutral and frugal and clean comparatively,
| we will push the combustion engine."
|
| Impressive tech, but I'd by lying if I said this doesn't rub me
| the wrong way. How do you mean combustion being CO2 neutral? And
| cool sound, this is one of my pet peeves. Why does a rich guy's
| wish for a "cool sound" in his sports car justify being a
| nuisance to other people? Motorbikes are the worst offender here.
| Sound limitations should be a lot stricter than they are.
| augstein wrote:
| > Motorbikes are the worst offender here. Sound limitations
| should be a lot stricter than they are
|
| Haven't given that much thought until now, but I guess you are
| completely right. One person driving a loud motorcycle or car
| through a dense city at night, can potentially disturb/wake up
| hundreds of people or more.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| They can and they do - I live in SF and it happens
| constantly. Especially with all the shitty cars with
| hypersensitive car alarms, so you get the double impact of
| motorcycles obnoxiously roaring by at 120db and then a few
| minutes of car alarms. Makes me nearly homicidal to realize
| how selfish people can be.
| StavrosK wrote:
| And the problem is that they put loud mufflers on purpose.
| The stock mufflers aren't very noisy, or at least they're as
| silent as a 16k RPM engine can be.
| ska wrote:
| Well the harleys are some of the worst offenders here, even
| on stock pipes. RPM isn't really an issue there.
| StavrosK wrote:
| Yeah but Harleys' main selling point is literally "the
| stock exhaust is distinctively annoying".
| aguyfromnb wrote:
| > _Why does a rich guy 's wish for a "cool sound" in his sports
| car justify being a nuisance to other people?_
|
| I'm not a rich guy, and I don't find it to be a nuisance in
| most circumstances; I appreciate the sound of high performance
| engines, and so do _many_ other people.
| StavrosK wrote:
| Is it the sound of the engine, or of the exhaust?
| castorp wrote:
| But a lot more people find loud engines simply horrible and
| inconsiderate.
| leetcrew wrote:
| how do you know? I live in a major city and I find loud
| exhausts to be only a fleeting annoyance. I'll admit I hate
| when people put straight pipes on motorcycles and inline
| fours, but I love listening to porsches and amgs go by. you
| might not guess it, since I drive a pretty quiet car
| myself.
|
| outside of hn, I've never really encountered anyone who was
| more than mildly annoyed by loud exhausts.
| anyfoo wrote:
| It just adds up, you know? I own a Porsche and I
| purposely left the sports exhaust option out (even though
| you can turn it off, I wasn't sure if it wasn't still
| louder then). Because if using my fun car means annoying
| everyone else in a radius like they are annoying me when
| they pass my house, it wouldn't be that much fun. Can't
| imagine what it must be for parents of young children,
| when some exhausts are loud enough to wake _me_ up in the
| middle of the night (and the surrounding car alarms).
| EL_Loco wrote:
| Sure, just as when I lived in a big crowded city I never
| really encountered anyone who was more than mildly
| annoyed by graffitti, trash in the street, minor
| vandalism (broken street lights, etc), and even petty
| theft.
| soganess wrote:
| I try to avoid these discussions on HN as I'm a petrohead
| and find myself often on the wrong side of the greater
| audience here.
|
| That said, no car is really loud sub ~3000 rpm, at least
| not in the way I imagine you're implying. That is all this
| (or most any) car would need to muster for driving down the
| streets of London or any city.
|
| The problem is that some owners get really aggressive with
| the throttle in places they really shouldn't. I'm with you,
| that is annoying, but that is by no means an isolated
| "super fancy car" problem. Motorbikes, modified scooters,
| tuner cars, trucks tuned for show instead of work.
|
| This whole thing is about how some folks can't help but
| flaunt their opulence/excess. Talking it out on the car is
| like talking down to Tesla for including autopilot knowing
| that some drunk drivers will simply use the feature to take
| themselves home.
| andrepd wrote:
| You can be a petrolhead -- among other like-minded
| petrolheads, in designated areas where you don't bother
| other people who simply have no choice whether or not
| they are subjected to your "taste". It's similar to
| smokers being inconsiderate and blowing smoke onto non-
| smoking persons. If I'm a "metalhead", that doesn't give
| me the right to blast music at 1 in the morning in my
| apartment, or during my morning commute.
| [deleted]
| MegaButts wrote:
| > That said, no car is really loud sub ~3000 rpm, at
| least not in the way I imagine you're implying.
|
| As someone who loves cars, I wildly disagree. There are
| modded cars that idle across the street that wake me up
| through my double-paned windows. A very popular mod is to
| add a downpipe to some cars, which is illegal in
| California (for emissions reasons), but people still do
| it and holy fuck it is just so god damn loud. It's great
| at the race track, not so great when you want to sleep.
| Sometimes cars are just loud and obnoxious.
| snemvalts wrote:
| i'm probably the biggest car fan i know in my personal
| circle, but a certain 370Z Nismo right outside my apartment
| does get annoying, after hearing that massively loud idle
| drone morning by morning.
|
| can imagine non car people getting at least as mad, at louder
| cars.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| I'm pretty sure one of the goals of freevalve was to make
| biofuels much more effective (and reach 50% efficiency)
| mirimir wrote:
| > Motorbikes are the worst offender here.
|
| Here too, except in winter. I'm out in the country, in the
| northeastern US, in hilly country. Late at night, with the
| windows open, I can hear bikes for maybe 5-10 km. I can even
| tell which roads they're on.
|
| Edit: In the winter, there are the snowmobiles, but our windows
| are closed.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| > Why does a rich guy's wish for a "cool sound" in his sports
| car justify being a nuisance to other people? Motorbikes are
| the worst offender here. Sound limitations should be a lot
| stricter than they are.
|
| My neighbor owns a couple of Porches with modified mufflers and
| a very loud motorcycle. I've argued with him at length about
| how his choice of noise intrudes on our peace, especially late
| at night. The bass vibrations travel further and will seem
| louder in different parts of the house, loud enough that two
| people conversing need to speak up. It's very bothersome.
| dboreham wrote:
| You have to realize that these people want to inconvenience
| others. That's what gives them their kicks. So it really
| isn't the Porsches that's the issue here but rather your
| asshole neighbor. I live in the middle of nowhere but.I still
| have a neighbor who keeps two constantly barking dogs. One of
| his dogs died so he replaced it with a new puppy which he
| proceeded to train to bark constantly too.
| wuunderbar wrote:
| He told you he purposefully trained the puppy to bark
| constantly?
| zanderz wrote:
| My German friend with a harley tells me that loud motorcycles
| are very strictly controlled in his part of Europe,
| especially Austria, which is popular to transit through on
| long tours to the Alps. He says Austrian police will
| confiscate a motorcycle on the spot if it is deemed too loud
| and/or illegally modified. I wish they did that in my
| neighborhood, where some motorcycles are loud enough to set
| off car alarms right outside my window.
| ska wrote:
| Europe has fairly strict sound limits on motorcycles (and
| they are getting stricter) in euro4/euro5. This constrains
| the manufacturers, but aftermarket enforcement really
| varies by location.
|
| These days a lot of manufacturers homologate to meet
| multiple standards, so we get euro4ish stuff in north
| america too, stock at least.
| andrepd wrote:
| Yep, it's not so much the production limits (still, they
| could be pushed gradually lower and I'm sure the
| manufacturers would manage), but it's the often grey-are
| of aftermarket modifications.
| apta wrote:
| I don't know why the government doesn't intervene and
| outright ban these practices.
| StavrosK wrote:
| Doesn't it? AFAIK it's illegal to have a noisy muffler, at
| least here (but it's not enforced, much to people's
| dismay).
| SlowRobotAhead wrote:
| Assholes and annoying people will find a way to skirt
| regulations.
|
| The more pressing thing is that if you keep asking for a
| big brother, don't be surprised when you get one.
| anyfoo wrote:
| Such a weird dichotomic view can only come from someone
| who's never lived in Europe. Loud cars and motorbikes
| weren't a thing in Germany, where I lived for 30 years,
| and yet I had the impression that my privacy was also
| much better protected and respected than here in the US.
| andrepd wrote:
| Giving hefty fines, or even outright confiscate veichles,
| to people blatantly ignoring the law and infringing on
| other people's well being. That's not "big brother", that
| is trivial to accomplish with a well-organised vehicle
| inspection programme.
| Swizec wrote:
| I ride a motorcycle with a lightly modified exhaust and I
| promise you my neighbors are way more upset about the 80db
| parrot :D
|
| The bike is less loud than an old car. Just don't rev like a
| maniac in the evening when streets are empty and you'll
| barely notice it above the normal noise.
|
| Now the parrot ... that little dude is something else. We've
| tried everything and you can still hear him a block away if
| he wants you to.
| ska wrote:
| > Why does a rich guy's wish for a "cool sound" in his sports
| car justify being a nuisance to other people?
|
| Not so much in pure sports cars, but some performance sedans
| have started to pipe engine sounds in through the stereo due to
| a combination of the engines being quieter and the sound
| isolation being better - but owners who pay more for the
| engines want to hear them.
|
| Seems like a good solution for everyone...
| anyfoo wrote:
| This is a pet peeve of mine since moving to the US. All the
| loud cars and motorbikes revving up at night, even setting off
| car alarms. Don't remember that ever being a thing in Munich
| (which, you can imagine, has plenty of high performing cars and
| motorcycles).
| balls187 wrote:
| Cool sounds doesn't necessarily mean "nuisance."
|
| Most US municipalities have noise ordinances for a reason. If
| you feel someones vehicle violates that, file a complaint with
| the local non-emergency police line.
| detritus wrote:
| Why should I/We have to?
|
| Surely people can just shut tf up?
| litany wrote:
| They are talking about their ability to run on biofuel (e85).
| They achieve the greatest performance on e85. The most recent
| research I've seen is that production of fuel ethanol is now
| carbon 0 or slightly carbon negative, for the whole chain
| (including production of raw materials, transportation etc).
| This won't be the case for all plants, and it's not clear to
| what extent production has reached this level, but it shows
| what is possible.
|
| So yeah, burning things may not be necessarily bad.
| Unfortunately no one seems to be investing in similar
| technologies to apply to other sectors of transportation such
| as aviation and shipping. It would seem to me to be much more
| realistic to design an engine for a airliner that burns a
| biofuel than to design a battery electric version.
|
| The people who have embraced biofuel (e85) the most are car
| guys looking for more power. E85 has good knock resistance
| (high octane rating) like race fuel, but is far cheaper. It
| also has a greater cooling effect upon injection (because you
| need to inject more, as it is lower energy density).
| dfee wrote:
| Sure dude. And as a driver on a motorbike, how about you stay
| off your cell phone while driving. And, as I frequently see
| here in California, how about you all also stop smoking blunts
| while driving?
|
| I should mention that a lot of motorcyclists feel that loud
| exhausts are a way of protecting themselves from distracted
| drivers.
| [deleted]
| throwythrower wrote:
| Motorcycles are dangerously loud (to the point of causing
| hearing damage). They amplify traffic woes when they weave in
| and out of crowded lanes. Oh and there's a reason the "biker
| dude" stereotype exists.
|
| If generating incessant noise is your only way of staying
| safe on the road, maybe consider getting something not as
| risky. Drive a car or take the bus. It works for the vast
| majority of people, maybe they're on to something eh?
| silverreads wrote:
| SUVs are probably the safest option. You get your nice
| isolation and you also get a nice crash cage! I wonder why
| it's so hard to prove to motorcyclists that this is the
| most efficient option!?
|
| ...Because they don't care about that crap. They are way
| ahead of your efficiency, often even ahead of the
| efficiency of a bus. A bike can get 70mpg without very much
| trouble and some more than 100mpg, and they don't cause
| traffic congestion in the first place because they occupy
| little additional space beyond the rider.
|
| Gee, Maybe they're on to something, eh?
| throwythrower wrote:
| This has to be some of the most flawed logic I've ever
| heard. Would that mean a pedestrian walking in the middle
| of the freeway wouldn't cause congestion either? They
| take up even lesser room, eh mate?
|
| Electric anything (this includes most city buses and
| cars, and some newer motorcycles) has a way lower
| environmental impact than any IC motorcycles.
|
| But hey, you do you, and keep telling yourself you're
| getting 100 mpg so you're doing better than most people.
| salty_biscuits wrote:
| Honda super cub begs to differ. Only 90kg of materials
| and a fuel efficiency of 60 km/l plus...
| kronin wrote:
| Are we talking total environmental impact? Sourcing
| materials, manufacturing, shipping to point of sale,
| usage, maintenance and finally disposal?
|
| Edit: just did some research...
|
| "Based on where EVs have been sold, driving the average
| EV produces global warming pollution equal to a gasoline
| vehicle that gets 88 miles per gallon (mpg) fuel
| economy." https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/are-
| electric-vehicles...
|
| "In a 2015 study, the Union of Concerned Scientists found
| that gas-powered cars emitted almost double the emissions
| that contribute to global warming as electric vehicles,
| which can make up the difference from the manufacturing
| stage in six to 18 months of driving, depending on the
| size of the battery."
| https://www.businessinsider.com/building-electric-cars-
| how-m...
| manigandham wrote:
| Walking _is_ more efficient than driving, it's not viable
| beyond short distances.
|
| Most vehicles are not electric yet.
| jascii wrote:
| Cars kill a lot more people then motorcycles, just not
| their owners.. From that perspective motorcycles _are_ the
| safer option.
|
| No motorcycle causes hearing damage beyond the rider, and
| this is caused by wind noise not the engine.
|
| The "weaving in and out of crowded lanes" is easily solved:
| don't be a selfish prick, give them some room..
| anyfoo wrote:
| Strangely enough, they aren't allowed to "protect" themselves
| doing that in Germany, and yet the fatality rate per capita
| is much lower.
| andrepd wrote:
| Whataboutism at its finest. How to drivers using cell phones
| diminish the validity of complaints about excessive noise?
| They're two unrelated problems.
| aguyfromnb wrote:
| > _Whataboutism at its finest._
|
| Your comment was, literally, "what about noisy motorbikes".
| hinkley wrote:
| > I should mention that a lot of motorcyclists feel that
| loud exhausts are a way of protecting themselves from
| distracted drivers.
|
| Not a motorcyclist, but I've heard this from many places.
| Can say that as a bicyclist, my best pieces of biggest
| safety equipment were in roughly descending order of
| importance: having my head in a swivel (vigilance),
| perfecting a barking shout, really good brakes, and in last
| place, a helmet. If the helmet comes into play you're
| already at least a little fucked.
|
| If I could make bikes louder I probably would.
|
| The one time I'm aware I cut off a motorcyclist, it was his
| engine that kept me out of his lane (to be fair, he was
| nearly in my blind spot, which is partly on him)
| dfee wrote:
| I'm confused. Did you not read my comment? I specifically
| addressed how they're not two separate problems.
| Klinky wrote:
| You need to accept some responsibility when deciding to
| ride a motorcycle. You're essentially saying you're okay
| with your body acting as the crumple zone in a crash. If
| it's so dangerous out there that you need to rumble
| around at 100dB then maybe it's time to reconsider. Many
| cars have impressive sound dampening and those that don't
| have wind noise drowning out almost anything else on the
| road.
| jascii wrote:
| Yes, I choose to have _my_ body be the crumble zone
| rather then using some innocent child for that purpose
| from the comfort of a 2 ton piece of armor with blind
| spots the size of Manhattan. Cars are about the most
| selfish ways to haul your rump around. I personally don
| 't have loud pipes, but in the context of the damage your
| car does the complaint is laughable.
| Klinky wrote:
| Do you really think that you wouldn't kill a child if you
| crashed into one on a motorcycle, or that the visibility
| on your motorcycle makes that outcome impossible?
|
| Car safety for occupants and pedestrians has improved
| dramatically over the last few decades. The same cannot
| be said for motorcycles.
| jascii wrote:
| Yes I do. And what's more, both statistics and my
| insurance company agree.
|
| The simple fact that my own life is at stake, makes me
| much more aware of my surroundings. This is a well
| researched neurological fact. Also, a 450lbs projectile
| has a lot less impact then a 2 ton one at the same speed.
| It is also significantly harder to hit a child with a 3'
| wide vehicle then with a 7' wide one..
|
| Car safety for occupants has increased and due to a side
| effect of aerodynamic design survivability of a
| pedestrian crash has marginally increased. Due to
| gigantic A pillars and a false sense of security, the
| amount of accidents has significantly increased and the
| safety of other road users is at an all time low.
| Klinky wrote:
| Did you double check that your lower insurance rates
| aren't due to non-existant injury/medical and uninsured
| motorist coverage, reduced value of the vehicle, and the
| vehicle being classified as a recreational vehicle vs
| daily driver?
|
| (450lbs motorcyle + 160lb rider) vs 60lb child = death.
|
| Riding a motorcycle while impaired, is one of the leading
| causes of motorcycle fatalities. Failing to wear PPE
| accounts for a significant number of potentially non-
| fatal accidents becoming fatal. Distracted riding is also
| on the rise. This doesn't seem to imply motorcyclists are
| inherently more aware of their surroundings or making
| better decisions due to the increased danger.
| jascii wrote:
| Yes, I have all that. It's pretty much a legal
| requirement for any motorvehicle in any state I know off.
|
| I am very aware of all the leading causes of death for
| motorcyclists. Your conclusion doesn't make sense though,
| there is a ridiculous amount of selection bias in there:
| they only looked at people who died... By and far
| motorcyclists are very safety concious people, they have
| to be: those who aren't tend to quit quickly, one way or
| another. Personally, I have ridden a motorcycle as my
| primary form of transportation for over 30 years without
| any meaningful incidents
| GhettoMaestro wrote:
| Not really. It doesn't take a fucking rocket scientist to
| understand that a fall at 70mph on a bike is probably fatal
| versus a car crash at 70mph with steel and airbags wrapped
| all around.
|
| Dumbass distracted car drivers are a bigger issue than
| motorocyles with "loud exhaust".
|
| Jack off to another topic - you're out of your element.
| audunw wrote:
| > How do you mean combustion being CO2 neutral?
|
| I read elsewhere that they can run the engine on a wide range
| of fuels, so I think they mean it's CO2-neutral if you run on
| biofuels.
|
| I'm not a big fan of biofuels, but I think they can have some
| role in a transition period if you have a mostly battery-
| electric drivetrain with an engine as range extender... and
| this car is a pretty good model for that. Remember that the
| production of batteries is limited, so it might be better to
| build 2 million cars that use a range extender once in a while,
| rather than 1 million cars that runs only on batteries (I say
| this as someone owning a pure battery electric vehicle btw).
|
| But I think the key for this kind of transition vehicle is an
| ultra-simple and compact generator. Maybe something that is
| modular and can be swapped with a battery pack later. I think
| free-piston engines is what we need (I'm guessing they need
| something like Freevalve though, so maybe Koenigsegg's research
| contributes there)
| vilhelm_s wrote:
| I guess he means it can run on ethanol produced from biofuel.
| smbullet wrote:
| I promise that you don't have Koenigseggs racing up and down
| your block. These are perfomance vehicles that are rarely taken
| out, usually to tracks or shows, and contribute very little to
| the world's carbon pollution. Unless I missed something and
| they started making budget cars, it's really not a problem.
| yao420 wrote:
| Well unless you live in certain parts of London:
| https://youtu.be/P-yHO1Lx878.
|
| Noise pollution from sports cars and motorcycles is real.
| catalogia wrote:
| I don't think that single example meaningfully contradicts
| the _" rarely"_ sentiment.
| ravar wrote:
| The video says this happens for the duration of the
| summer, every year. That seems pretty frequent to me.
| [deleted]
| catalogia wrote:
| Frequent in that neighborhood, but still very rare in the
| grand scheme of things. You're missing the forest for the
| trees.
| thefounder wrote:
| Well the they should not be road legal and "everybody"'s
| happy
| andrepd wrote:
| >These are perfomance vehicles that are rarely taken out,
| usually to tracks or shows,
|
| Okay, if this is how it is, then why are they allowed on the
| road? Obviously I don't have a problem with people driving
| this in tracks or shows, only in public roads.
|
| Besides, if the speed limit is, at most, 130kph, why do we
| allow (again, on public roads) machines that go to 250, 300,
| or above? Or that speed from a stop to that aforementioned
| speed limit in 5 or 6 seconds? Again, by all means enjoy them
| on the tracks (still, within reason with more relaxed
| emission standards).
| leetcrew wrote:
| because having a high top speed is a silly reason to
| restrict a vehicle from driving on public roads? being able
| to accelerate fast enough to safely merge onto a highway
| implies a drag-limited top speed much higher than the
| posted limit. most cheap sedans can already go about twice
| as fast as a typical highway speed limit.
|
| do you also want to ban usain bolt from the sidewalk
| because he could run too fast if he wanted to?
| andrepd wrote:
| _> because having a high top speed is a silly reason to
| restrict a vehicle from driving on public roads_
|
| My argument is wrong because it is silly. Gotcha.
|
| _> do you also want to ban usain bolt from the sidewalk_
|
| When Usain Bolt can delete a family from existence with
| one wrong flick of the wrist, I'll support banning Usain
| Bolt from running in the sidewalk.
|
| Alternatively, when Usain Bolts running in sidewalks are
| one of the leading worldwide causes of death.
|
| And I'm pretty sure that if Usain Bolt were running at
| 30kph on a crowded sidewalk somebody would stop him,
| which is actually a pretty nice analogy to the obviously
| beneficial measure of _placing a speed limiter on cars_.
| Hamuko wrote:
| > _Okay, if this is how it is, then why are they allowed on
| the road?_
|
| Because they meet all of the legal requirements to be
| operated on public roads.
| andrepd wrote:
| Lol, obviously I'm asking why is this the legal
| requirement.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| It's funny you assume people want their cars to sound nice for
| you.
|
| My car makes cool sounds, and they're for me.
|
| Just like people who say sports car owners just want to impress
| others.
|
| My car brings _me_ joy, when I'm driving it everyone else might
| as well not exist outside of their occasional attempts to merge
| into me.
|
| If someone truly wants their car to sound a certain way for
| others, then the car isn't the problem, the person is.
|
| They'd find some other way to get under you skin if it wasn't
| noises...
| abofh wrote:
| Your car creates external effects. No matter how much joy
| you're giving yourself, if you're causing harm to others,
| then you're creating the problem. I can buy an air horn and
| follow you around, but blasting it in your ears is illegal
| for a reason.
| Rabbi_Goldberg wrote:
| There are far more poor guys thumping around in their modified
| rust buckets with an exhaust system and/or audio system that
| lacks any of the sophistication and exclusivity of a supercar's
| song.
|
| If you can't appreciate the crackle and pop of a supercar
| taking off then I'd suggest you're very green in more ways than
| just your environmental concerns.
| fwip wrote:
| > This is a flexible-fuel engine optimized to burn alcohol--
| ethanol, butanol, or methanol, or any combination thereof.
| Alcohol fuels are great for performance, but Koenigsegg says
| their use is also a key part of making the TFG clean, since
| they generate fewer harmful particulates than gasoline. And
| with sustainably-sourced fuel, the TFG can be effectively
| carbon-neutral.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| I have no horse in this race (I don't ride a motorcycle; not
| interested), but these days cars and motorcycles both seem to
| be big offenders. If you want to hate on someone, probably the
| fairest thing to do is be equal opportunity about it and hate
| on both cars and motorcycles for this.
|
| I discovered this after making the now-regrettable choice of
| living very near a busy major road. I hear a lot of vehicles.
| (Sometimes so loud that I can't understand the TV in my own
| living room.)
|
| At first I assumed it obviously must be motorcycles. But one
| day I gazed out the window and watched traffic for a while, and
| to my surprise, I learned there really are a whole lot of cars
| which have been modified to be super loud. I didn't exactly
| collect stats, but it's not obviously more one than the other.
| jniedrauer wrote:
| I actually just moved specifically because of this problem.
| The peace and quiet has been such a nice change. You should
| really consider it as soon as you can.
|
| The biggest offenders here in the PNW are actually pickup
| trucks. Having worked in the automotive industry recently, I
| know that pickup trucks are one of the only profitable
| classes of vehicles left for dealerships. It's really an
| unfortunate situation. People are willing to overpay for
| gargantuan vehicles that make too much noise, use too much
| fuel, and pose a severe risk to pedestrians, so they can
| build some kind of macho identity. This really seems like an
| area where governments should step in and put upper limits on
| vehicle size and noise generation.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| Hah, your timing is great. My lease is up for renewal, I've
| already toured some other alternatives, and I'm trying to
| decide right now (like maybe today) whether I want to put
| in an application.
|
| The expense and hassle are both significant, but being away
| from that noise would be pretty nice. It's interesting to
| hear the perspective of someone with firsthand knowledge of
| the situation.
|
| One thing I realized in this process is that you can find
| quiet and you can find walkability, but if you want both,
| that's way more difficult.
|
| Also, in my experience, the loudest vehicles are all that
| way due to aftermarket modifications. And they're probably
| breaking noise laws that already exist but just aren't
| enforced.
| allovernow wrote:
| You really don't understand car enthusiasm. These are more than
| just toys for some people. There's a certain soul to them.
|
| And this "nuisance" is overstated. The amount of harm that
| enthusiasts do in terms of noise and air pollution are
| absolutely negligible - don't clutch pearls.
| [deleted]
| trhway wrote:
| >AI engine management software for Freevalve engines like the
| TFG. "The system will learn over time the best ways to operate
| the valves, what's most frugal, what's cleanest... It will
| eventually start doing things we've never thought of," Koenigsegg
| says. "It'll float in and out of different ways of combusting by
| itself, eventually in ways not completely understandable to us."
|
| sounds like the blue-collar jobs of the future like car engine
| mechanic would need a Stanford AI degree.
|
| Camshafts definitely got to go. Like carburetors it has been a
| solution from pre-electronic age. The variable timing has been a
| workaround for the last 3 decades, it is kind of a complication
| on top of the camshaft approach. These days though i don't
| understand while mainstream car manufacturers wouldn't just go
| for the fully independent valve approach like that "Freevalve",
| i.e. each valve is driven by its own solenoid/pneumo/hydro
| actuator controlled by the computer - such approach looks simpler
| and cheaper to me (may be because i'm in software :)
| analognoise wrote:
| This is just dumb marketing speak for a simple hill climber
| with a handful of dimensions and a few heuristics. Ecu's have
| been doing this for like 25 years.
|
| Basically, AI=bullshit in any marketing copy at this point.
| [deleted]
| dukoid wrote:
| Does anybody have a pointer to a schema / animation how this
| works? Is this a radial motor?
| brink wrote:
| There's a video in the article. Did you look?
| dukoid wrote:
| Yes. There are 4 photos and an unrelated "rube goldberg"
| video at the end?
| [deleted]
| brink wrote:
| I'm not sure why you're not seeing it. This is the video in
| the middle of the article. https://vimeo.com/395222190
| dukoid wrote:
| Thanks for the direct link! I can't find any vimeo
| reference in the page source, perhaps it depends on
| country or adblocker or whatever.
|
| I guess part of my confusion stemmed from mixing up the
| camshaft and the crankshaft (the former seems relatively
| straightforward to replace in a conventional motor, the
| latter not so much...) O:)
| hinkley wrote:
| I take it the complexity of the system favors fewer cylinders and
| a larger bore.
|
| This could be interesting when it comes down market a bit.
| Especially given the flex fuel ability.
| rcv wrote:
| I really love the idea of a camless engine. Is there some
| fundamental reason it hasn't been more widely adopted other than
| tooling change costs? I can't imagine the solenoids are that much
| more expensive than a ground camshaft and all of the supporting
| hardware at volume.
|
| This very much feels like the transition from brushed to
| brushless motors to me - super cheap compute power and sensors
| unlocking a much more efficient way to drive electric motors. As
| far as I know there's no _real_ advantage to brushed motors
| except in dirt cheap applications where a potentiometer is the
| most expensive speed controller you can afford.
| Theodores wrote:
| How come it has taken many decades for Freevalve to come along?
| Genuinely curious as it doesn't seem impossible that someone else
| had thought of it.
| noughtme wrote:
| Pneumatic valves are expensive. They have been used in F1.
| Similarly, despite overhead valves cams being invented in 1902,
| they weren't popularized until the 1983 Toyota Corolla, and you
| can still find pushrods in the 2020 Corvette.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| FIAT/Lancia were using OHC engines in the seventies, well
| before 1983.
| jacquesm wrote:
| They were used in a little 0.7 liter Daihatsu Copen engine as
| well if I remember correctly.
| noughtme wrote:
| Maybe you're thinking of the Daihatsu Charmant, which was
| basically a rebadged Corolla. The 660cc Copen kei car was
| relased in 2002.
| jacquesm wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daihatsu_Copen
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Seems you misspoke. We've been using overhead _valves_ far
| longer than 1983. Overhead cam is probably what you meant.
| Though depending on how mainstream it needs to be in order to
| be considered 'popular', the first dual overhead cam engine
| was in production in the 20s, IIRC.
| noughtme wrote:
| Whoops, yeah, meant cams. Popularized in the sense of being
| in a mass market car.
| ska wrote:
| Right. I'm pretty sure they were mass market in Europe
| well before that camry though.
| irjustin wrote:
| EngineeringExpalined has a great video[0] on the overall
| mechanics of the system.
|
| Sadly, I don't expect to see this in regular Ford or Toyotas any
| time soon. The cost benefit combined design upgrade and tooling
| change is just not practical.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJXgKY2O4po
| csours wrote:
| I wonder if this engine is only 3 cylinders because of the cost
| of the valves? Fewer cylinders, fewer valves...
| mysterydip wrote:
| They said in the article basically "why make it bigger than
| it has to be? It does the job and leaves more room for
| passenger space."
| xgbi wrote:
| Just like for motorcycles, 3 cyl is the ideal for both torque
| and revs. Bi is all torque, 4 is all revs, and the 3 is just
| in between.
| biosed wrote:
| I find 3 cyl motorcycles slow and lack top end.
| csours wrote:
| OT, but kind of related: Would it be possible build an air-cooled
| engine that runs on alcohol, and uses water/methanol spray in the
| intake air such that the temperature of the engine is controlled
| by the amount of water/meth?
| agoodthrowaway wrote:
| I race motorcycless and so have some experience with high
| horsepower small engines. My first thought is I wonder how high
| the compression is to get this HP with only 3 cylinders? With
| high compression, everything wears much faster and components
| like pistons, connecting rods, and bearings need to be replaced
| at regular intervals for the engine to remain reliable.
| Additionally frequent oil changes become necessary as the oil
| breaks down more quickly under these conditions and metal
| shavings from wear build up in the oil. Things like connecting
| rods become stressed and need to be replaced at regular intervals
| for the engine to remain reliable.
|
| I'd imagine that the Konigsegg buyer probably doesn't care about
| maintenance costs but they might be irritated at the service
| intervals.
|
| I wonder how much maintenance that will be?
| thetinguy wrote:
| Car oil can get additives that motorcycles cannot get because
| the engine and transmission share oil. Friction modifier can
| extend effective oil lifespan. 600 hp also requires e85.
| 4gotunameagain wrote:
| Not totally true, a honda CRF450 for example has separate
| crank case and transmission oil
| jjjensen90 wrote:
| Cars in the class of Koenigseggs are actually rarely driven,
| things like wear and tear are often not a concern at all,
| what's more important is exclusivity and exotic-ness.
| Maintenance is something a buyer in this class doesn't even
| consider in my experience.
| zeusk wrote:
| They're actually marketing this freevalve tech for consumer
| cars. They already have a tech demonstration partner (a
| Chinese car maker).
| kenOfYugen wrote:
| Mean Piston Speed [1] is a good indicator of engine longevity.
|
| ~16 m/s for automobile engines
|
| ~25 m/s for Formula one engines
|
| ~26.5 m/s for Koenigsegg's 2.0-Liter
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_piston_speed
| sorenjan wrote:
| Koenigsegg Gemera use their direct drive system, with only
| one gear. So the engine will only see max revs when you're
| traveling at top speed, which will probably be quite rare
| since it's 400 km/h (249 mph).
| MegaButts wrote:
| And Formula 1 engines are only meant to last hours (yes
| really, most engines don't even last one season), albeit at
| ridiculously high stress levels.
|
| If we extrapolate from this, where high performance drag cars
| typically last minutes (20 years ago they only lasted
| seconds), that would mean this engine might only be good for
| a couple of hours of driving around the track. Assuming this
| is true (I am not saying it is), this engine would be pretty
| worthless for anything other than being a collector's item or
| being used for 1 or 2 races before it had to be retired.
| close04 wrote:
| > yes really, most engines don't even last one season
|
| "Even" one season? If they last more than one race it means
| they didn't push it hard enough so it makes sense that the
| engine last just marginally more than the race.
| MegaButts wrote:
| The new rules set the limit at 3 engines per season,
| which is 21 races plus testing. So it's a balancing act,
| but you definitely need to reuse the engine for more than
| 1 race.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| And for those not in the know, a F1 race is ~305km, and
| they have do two days of practice plus qualifying in a
| race weekend using the engines they have (same engine for
| qualifying as for racing). There's some more detail in
| this[1] article, where they point out the Mercedes F1
| engine did over 3000 miles (~4900km) during pre-season
| testing without issues (most in race-like conditions).
|
| That said, from my impression it is usually the turbo or
| the hybrid systems that break down, it's rare for the
| actual engine block to be the issue barring specific
| production issues.
|
| [1]: https://autoweek.com/article/formula-
| one/mercedes-f1-engine-...
| mazesc wrote:
| F1 regulates the maximum number of engines a season (to 3
| currently). So they have to last ~7 races.
|
| Edit: old numbers updated
| pmontra wrote:
| 7 races per engine including Saturday practice and
| qualifying. It's about 5 hours per weekend times 7. 35
| hours, which a commuter car does in about 10 days.
| techslave wrote:
| and F1 tires only last a few _laps_. it's all designed in.
| the F1 engines don't expire in a few races because they
| can't build them more robust, they expire in a few races
| because the rules require them to last _that long_. they
| could last all season (yes, with same performance) if they
| were required to do so.
| pmontra wrote:
| I'd be surprised that they could build tires to go on for
| 22 GPs with the same performances, but who knows. The
| goal was raw speed when there were multiple
| manufacturers. The only year with a rule to forbid tyre
| changes during a race was 2005. Maybe you remember that
| Indianapolis GP with only 6 cars racing because thr
| banking destroyed the tires of the other manufacturer
| (which won all the other GPs.)
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| Interesting that they use the mean of the absolute value
| instead of root-mean-square as in other sinusoidal
| applications (63.7% of the peak value vs. 70.7% for RMS).
|
| RMS has all sorts of interesting properties, being directly
| proportional to effects that result from the square of the
| quantity being measured such as force on the connecting rods
| or acceleration of the piston, but mean piston speed is
| easier to calculate from familiar quantities to an automotive
| engineer like stroke and RPM. I wonder if engine longevity is
| actually proportional to mean piston speed or RPM, it would
| be easy to mistake the 7% difference given all the
| confounding factors...
| repsilat wrote:
| If they're only different by a constant factor, then both
| have the same interesting properties and neither is much
| more difficult to calculate than the other -- at least for
| sinusoids.
|
| If something is proportional to one, it's naturally
| proportional to the other.
| uxp100 wrote:
| Almost anyone on this website could answer better than me
| for this, was always weak in math, but I believe they
| differ by a constant factor for a sine, but for a more
| complex waveform they will not (well, the amount they
| vary by would be different for each waveform).
| lvh wrote:
| It's true that the factor between RMS vs peak-to-peak is
| different for e.g. a sine vs a sawtooth wave, but for
| other waveforms its still a constant (just a different
| one), and for this engine it should be just about a sine
| wave anyway.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| the continuously variable valves is the key here, you can have
| the engine make good power at very high rpm, AND very low rpm,
| AND in between.
| hi5eyes wrote:
| Konigsegg is part of the echelon with bugatti owners that have
| warehouses of cars
| kragen wrote:
| The cylinders are especially large, but the displacement is
| still only 2. I think the unusually high horsepower for a 2
| engine is not just because of high compression but also because
| a they normally run it at especially high revs, like your
| motorcycles; b they run it on a two-stroke cycle at low speeds,
| up to 3krpm; and c they optimized it to run on alcohols, which
| as you know have lower energy density but are better at keeping
| the engine cool.
| djrogers wrote:
| The engine does _not_ run as a 2 stroke below 3k, the article
| says it theoretically _could_ but they haven't tested that.
|
| Also, 8,500 RPM isn't 'especially high revs' these days...
|
| And finally, it still produces 500HP on pump gas - even that
| is outrageously more than any other 3cyl engine available.
| leetcrew wrote:
| 8500 is still pretty high for a turbo. most performance
| cars with turbos don't have a redline that high.
| willyt wrote:
| 1.0 litre 3 cyl petrol engine in my car makes 120hp and gets
| 50mpg extra urban. It has dynamic servicing and first service
| is currently shown as 550 days away. Obviously the 2.0
| konigsegg makes 5 times the HP, but maybe double the cylinder
| volume and half the service time and you can ramp up the
| compression enough to multiply the hp by 5?
| ska wrote:
| That's relatively low hp for the displacement, so it's harder
| to extrapolate.
|
| For another comparison the 3 cylinder 765cc engine from
| Triumph (street version) does about 120 or 125 with a red
| line of 12.5k if I recall correctly. In racing form (i.e. the
| moto2 engine version) it pushes about 140 (I think mostly via
| tuning and a bit higher red line). This is naturally
| aspirated but probably a good rough guestimate for bounds of
| what you can do on regular fuel and air. This also shows you
| why just ramping up the compression won't get you there, you
| need to change the air pressure too. For the street version
| of the triumph engine the service interval is something like
| 10k miles, valves every 2nd one.
|
| If you scale that linearly you still "only" get close to 350
| , so you have an idea of how much stress is on this design to
| push 600 on 2l.
|
| By comparison the inline 4s in motogp make 250+ from 1 liter,
| so that's getting closer. They do probably represent
| something close to what is possible without induction though.
| consp wrote:
| > If you scale that linearly you still "only" get close to
| 350 , so you have an idea of how much stress is on this
| design to push 600 on 2l.
|
| -Removed, I misunderstood the original post, still you can
| design an engine with more power if torque requirements are
| low, and they claim 280hp at 2l which is a lot but doable
| if you don't intent to run it like a roadcar and have
| infinite budget like with those super/hypercars-
| ska wrote:
| updated:
|
| Agree low torque requirements help, which has a lot to do
| with the rest of the drivetrain, i.e. how you want to
| actually deliver power and at what speeds.
| hinkley wrote:
| The article says 600 hp on high test fuel, 500 hp on
| conventional, but that's still 167 hp per cylinder which is
| nuts.
| hinkley wrote:
| It's also a high rpm motor, which will still require lower
| tolerances and better materials. I don't recall but don't
| higher rpms have a lower rate of wear than higher compression?
| monkpit wrote:
| Wouldn't it require higher tolerances?
| BubRoss wrote:
| Lower tolerance numbers, higher precision
| [deleted]
| hinkley wrote:
| Tolerances are like margins of error. As the error range
| goes down, the exactness of the specification goes up. Or
| as the others said, the precision.
|
| If it makes you feel any better, I have to pause for a beat
| any time I try to put an adjective in front of 'tolerances'
| to make sure I don't sound like a dope.
| namdnay wrote:
| It's kind of counter-intuitive, you'd expect lower
| tolerance to mean the tolerance for deviations is lower, or
| higher precision
| ska wrote:
| The service intervals aren't good on a lot of cars in this
| class. This is mitigated by a lot of them not being driven
| much.
| Hamuko wrote:
| These kinds of cars go bad by just being parked. Even if you
| don't move it at all in a year, you probably still need to
| have it serviced.
| ska wrote:
| I don't mean never driving, just rarely. So often in
| practice that means once a year even if your interval is 7
| or even 5k. Nothing onerous.
|
| Besides, if you have one if these you have a bunch of other
| cars.
| speedgoose wrote:
| > "We don't make pure electric cars because for the time being,
| we think they're too heavy, and they don't make a cool sound. And
| as long as we can be CO2 neutral and frugal and clean
| comparatively, we will push the combustion engine."
|
| I read that as "we don't give a fuck about emissions because we
| like vroom vroom and we plant a few trees to not feel bad about
| it".
|
| I agree about the weight problem of large lithium batteries, and
| light hydrogen fuel cells may not deliver enough pick power, so I
| don't have a good solution for hyper cars. I just think that ICE
| engines shouldn't be in cars ASAP.
| rbanffy wrote:
| > "we don't give a fuck about emissions because we like vroom
| vroom"
|
| Some people like to compensate with cars what they lack in
| other attributes.
| kube-system wrote:
| The average exotic burns about 1/3rd the amount fuel per year
| as does a typical hybrid vehicle. The reason being, exotics
| are driven 1/10th as much. And the environmental impact of
| all exotic cars in existence combined would be easily lost in
| a rounding error. They're essentially irrelevant to
| environmental impact. Nobody uses them as primary
| transportation.
| speedgoose wrote:
| I think a main reason why people in Europe don't buy the huge
| American pickup trucks to commute is because of that. They
| know everyone will joke about their penis size all the time,
| forever.
| Hamuko wrote:
| The main reason is that Europeans realize that you don't
| need one. If they actually need to haul a bunch of stuff,
| they'll buy a cargo van.
| gorbachev wrote:
| The roads in European cities are generally speaking much
| smaller than in the US. You'd have real difficulty
| navigating the roads in a pickup truck in Europe.
| speedgoose wrote:
| Yes, and these trucks use way too much gaz for European
| standards.
| kube-system wrote:
| And European wallets. That side of the pond prefers
| spending less on cars to begin with, and is also usually
| taxed on CO2 on top of the high gas prices. I doubt the
| average Asda has a dozen late model 5L+ V8 vehicles out
| front with prices >$50,000 USD. But the average Walmart
| in the US does.
| creddit wrote:
| If they are legitimately carbon neutral, why does it matter?
| DagAgren wrote:
| If.
|
| Biofuels are not environmentally friendly, at all.
| winrid wrote:
| Well yeah. They're fun.
| andrepd wrote:
| I'll be sure to keep that in mind if I'm one of the tens to
| hundreds of thousands of annual excess deaths due to
| pollution.
| winrid wrote:
| Oh, do you live next to a factory making parts for electric
| cars?
| vinceguidry wrote:
| The engine burns alt-fuels. They took a lot of time and care to
| tune the engine so it can run carbon neutral.
|
| It's pretty sad to see this effort fall on deaf ears. Someone
| here doesn't care, but it's not Koenigsegg.
| lukeschlather wrote:
| Alcohol-based fuels are, generally speaking, worse than
| gasoline or even diesel when you do a full life-cycle
| analysis. They are not carbon neutral.
|
| They could be, plausibly, but that technology has not been
| commercially demonstrated yet.
| alkonaut wrote:
| If you produce ethanol from locally sourced biomass using
| renewable power, you'll get as close as you can. The figure
| 60% CO2 emission reduction (compared to gasoline) is often
| floated.
|
| Completely carbon neutral is difficult for any product of
| course. E85 is 15-24% gasoline too, which is neither
| renewable or carbon neutral.
|
| I still don't think its a very good idea (cars are thirsty,
| infrastructure expensive, worse than both biogas and EV's
| for climate etc).
| avalys wrote:
| More like "we don't care about emissions because we only make
| 20 cars per year."
|
| It makes no sense to get all up in arms about carbon emissions
| from sports cars. As a fraction of the market, even if you
| include more mainstream manufacturers like Porsche, they're
| totally inconsequential.
|
| But of course, if you are really just using carbon emissions as
| a way to preach and brag about your morally superior lifestyle
| and/or political positions, expensive sports cars are a great
| target.
| speedgoose wrote:
| I'm sorry that you assume that I feel morally superior. I
| don't. You can enjoy your ICE sport car, it's okay.
| [deleted]
| praptak wrote:
| It's a philosophical question. Is the rarity actually a good
| excuse?
|
| I'd say no. We should not burn carbon without serious need,
| as rarity or not. This particular case is more complicated
| though - they are developing technology which may be a net
| saver in CO2 emissions in which case it sorta pays for
| itself.
| avalys wrote:
| Who determines what a serious need is?
|
| No ones needs a sports car. Or a 40" TV. Or to go golfing.
| Or Broadway shows. Movie theaters - for that matter, no one
| needs movies at all! Recreational international travel -
| totally unecesssary. Why does anyone need more than one
| house? A house larger than 2,000 square feet? Why does
| anyone need more than 2 kids?
| Hamuko wrote:
| > _We should not burn carbon without serious need, as
| rarity or not._
|
| This would require a ban on holiday air travel.
| Hamuko wrote:
| > _It makes no sense to get all up in arms about carbon
| emissions from sports cars._
|
| These aren't even sports cars. These are hyper cars. They're
| rich people collectibles on wheels.
| alkonaut wrote:
| ICE doesn't necessarily mean fossil fuel. In Sweden where these
| cars come from you'll find E85 (85% renewable ethanol) at every
| gas station. Not sure what the situation is like in other
| countries, but for someone who can afford a car like this, it
| should be possible to run it carbon neutral or nearly so. CO2
| isn't the only emission from an ICE vehicle however.
| speedgoose wrote:
| Why taking away lands from the nature or the food production
| to produce ethanol so people can enjoy ICE engine sounds ?
| Just use the fake engine sounds on the speakers (yes it's a
| thing).
| alkonaut wrote:
| We have 10k trees per person, and growing. We subsidize
| farmers to keep the forests from taking over the landscape
| here.
|
| Making ethanol from wheat or similar is bad, but from
| forest products in forest-covered countries seems ok.
|
| I don't think a number of hypercars makes any difference to
| the climate issue. For the rest of us the solution is
| probably BEVs
| dragontamer wrote:
| Given the cost of Lithium Ion batteries, especially the human
| costs of mining Cobalt, I would argue that hybrids are the
| better technology today.
|
| You reduce the Lithium-Ion battery size, and then increase the
| range of cars. Li-Ion is also extremely heavy, reducing range,
| increasing wear-and-tear on the road.
|
| In overall costs, hybrids make sense today. We need another
| magnitude of improvements before Li-Ion batteries can
| completely replace ICE.
|
| But we are absolutely at the point where Li-Ion can augment
| cars in hybrid form. Maybe in a few years, a Cobalt-free
| battery would be mass produced (or other chemistry that doesn't
| need to be sourced from war-torn nations).
|
| And in the meantime, increasing ICE efficiency by 30% (on TOP
| of the Hybrid savings) is only a good thing.
| speedgoose wrote:
| I think the human cost of gaz is underestimated. Between the
| wars, the pollution, the destruction of nature, it's not
| great. True some cobalt mines are a shame, some are even
| using children. I don't think any car manufacturer wants to
| be associated with that, so they try to use providers from
| "ok" mines.
|
| The range isn't really a problem for new electric cars and
| the weight will hopefully go down. Personally I think that
| the hybrids I can afford drive like shit compared to the
| fully electric cars I can afford.
| Justin_K wrote:
| They make high performance cars, what do you expect? With your
| logic, any improvement to IC engines is evil...
| speedgoose wrote:
| It's ok to improve ICE engines. I'm sure some people continue
| to improve horse drawn carriages.
|
| Thankfully we don't have our cities full of horse poop
| anymore.
| Justin_K wrote:
| Why do you keep on saying "internal combustion engine"
| engines? Are you trolling?
| speedgoose wrote:
| You are a bit pedantic.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Jesus. Not everybody lives or wants to live in a city. Get
| over it.
| speedgoose wrote:
| You never drive to a city ?
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Not as often as driving over a horse poop when out and
| about in the countryside. And I'm not complaining about
| it.
|
| But when I'm there, I never really feel comfrtable
| walking around. It's full of people on bicycles who don't
| give a damn about pedestrians.
| WanderPanda wrote:
| Why all this focus on weight? Regenerative breaking makes
| weight 80% more irrelevant, or did I miss something?
| ska wrote:
| This is a performance car company. Weight is 100% relevant,
| it will help with acceleration and deceleration performance,
| cornering especially at speeds low enough that down force
| isn't determining your grip, and general responsiveness.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Road wear is IIRC to the 4th power of weight.
|
| That is to say, a 4500 lb Tesla Model S has 5x the road-wear
| of a 3000lb Toyota Camry.
|
| If all Tesla Model S drivers were willing to pay 500% the
| road-taxes to make up for their 5x damages that their cars do
| to our roads, I think I'll be cool with them using their
| road-destroying heavy batteries.
|
| And the F150 drivers too, while we're at it.
| zaroth wrote:
| You are generally correct that a 4,500lb car will do 5x the
| road wear per mile than a 3,000lb vehicle. (Although some
| studies find damage increases closer to a power of 3 not
| 4). However it's extremely important to ask... 5 times what
| number?
|
| The cost per mile in terms of road damage is mainly a
| function of axle weight and designed load and volume of the
| road surface. The damage per mile per ESAL (Equivalent
| Single Axle Load) can vary from $0.03/ESAL-mile to
| $5.90/ESAL-mile when you exceed the design load of the
| road. Low volume roads will have a higher ESAL because of
| natural wear exceeding use-based wear.
|
| Since passenger cars will never exceed the design load of a
| road, this is not a factor in our analysis (but it's a very
| big deal for heavy trucks, particularly on rural roads).
| Since low volume road wear is predominantly due to natural
| causes and not road-use we should probably exclude those as
| well.
|
| Just to put this in perspective, the cost per mile per ESAL
| of $0.09 (a relatively high volume road that operates
| within vehicle weight design spec), gives us road damage
| for a light passenger car (3,000 pounds) or 0.0002 ESAL
| which equates to $1.80 per 100,000 miles.
|
| Increasing to an ESAL of 0.001 results in a wear cost of
| $9.00 per 100,000 miles.
|
| Basically all road wear comes from heavy trucks with an
| ESAL > 1. This is compounded when those trucks exceed the
| design load of the road, which can add another up to 500x
| multiplier on the damage per mile driven.
|
| The damage/road wear cost for passenger vehicles is a
| barely even a rounding error by comparison.
|
| Based on this simple analysis, I do not believe it is at
| all justified to claim that Teslas (or EVs in general) have
| "road-destroying heavy batteries."
|
| [1] - https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-
| desk/design/design...
|
| [2] - https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/tswstudy/TSWwp3.pdf
| ska wrote:
| This is true. The real problem is trucking, and the way
| roads are paid for it amounts to a massive public subsidy
| to that industry, with lots of market distortion around
| that (see also, state of US rail systems).
| zaroth wrote:
| In the sense that passenger cars aren't causing really
| any wear and tear to our major roadways, this is
| absolutely true.
|
| However, the value of having those major highways is
| still extremely high to passenger cars and trucks alike.
|
| I benefit greatly from well maintained roads, even if my
| use of those roads is not damaging the road basically at
| all.
|
| So you need a weighted analysis of use and value as well
| as wear & tear to come up with a "fair" allocation of
| costs.
|
| Even people who don't own a car benefit greatly from
| those roads, due to their logistical necessity for
| everyday life, not to mention mail and package delivery
| to their homes. To the extent that passenger car drivers
| overpay for their commensurate road wear & tear, car
| owners are subsidizing non-car-owners because the goods
| they buy are cheaper than they would be if they had to
| pay for the true fully loaded logistics cost.
|
| You could charge the trucking companies more. Then prices
| of transported goods would just increase to compensate
| and we'd all be roughly back in the same place maybe?
| Non-car owners would be worse off.
|
| To the extent that roads are being subsidized more than
| _rail_ then this would distort the market and limit
| freight volumes. I have a feeling that the markets are
| not tremendously out of balance, and that it's not like
| we're sitting on massive unused rail freight capacity
| that just can't operate profitably because roads aren't
| expensive enough? But that's a whole different topic.
| ska wrote:
| Righ, the system as a whole is useful. But if truck
| traffic wasn't as heavy/damaging, you would pay less to
| enjoy the same benefits, give or take.
|
| I think the argument made by some transport people is
| that if we made (particularly) the trucking industry pay
| more directly, as you say we would be roughly back in the
| same place except variant freight methods (e.g. rail for
| long distances) might become competitive enough to bring
| overall costs down.
|
| I don't know the truth of this, but we've been
| subsidizing trucking long enough that I don't think
| current rail capacity is a good indicator one way or
| another. It seem plausible - it's clear there is a market
| distortion but not clear exactly what it is.
|
| One nit-pick, it's not clear the non-car owners would be
| worse off so long as whatever payment mechanism we used
| didn't create a free-rider class of passenger vehicles.
| zaroth wrote:
| To the extent that car owners are subsidizing the
| trucking industry, and to the extent that trucking
| industry subsidies flow through to the cost of goods
| delivered by trucks (the same thing as saying that
| increased trucking costs flow through to goods delivered
| by truck), then shifting the balance necessarily means
| car owners paying less and non-car owners paying more.
|
| I will admit I stumbled upon this conclusion and felt it
| was ironically juicy and a bit provocative, but it seems
| like pretty solid macroeconomics to me!
| ska wrote:
| Agreed, I worded that badly - what I meant is that non-
| car owners could still save more by not driving than the
| delta on the goods, potentially, as they are paying only
| the fractional cost that they are actually consuming, if
| everything else was "correctly" redistributed.
|
| This is all complicated though by the way we actually pay
| for all of this, so it's not as simple as car owners
| subsidizing. It's not like the gas tax covers this.
| djrogers wrote:
| A Model 3 starts at 3,550lbs, vs 3,241 for a Camry. A model
| S is not in the same class as a Camry, so comparing them is
| not useful.
|
| A better comparison- a Mercedes S Class, starts at 4,500lbs
| to the 4,800lbs of a Tesla Model S.
|
| In both cases there's a mere 300lb difference (less than
| 10%), which is way under the 1500lbs/ 50% difference your
| argument is based on.
| speedgoose wrote:
| It's still good to be light on low speed corners. At high
| speed the aerodynamic down force is much greater.
|
| I think they just want to have a super fast car for a few
| people, and to do so you need to pollute with an ICE engine.
| [deleted]
| Wistar wrote:
| Jalopnik does a deep dive into the engineering of the entire
| Gemera drivetrain but plenty about the 3-cyl engine.
|
| https://jalopnik.com/a-detailed-look-at-the-koenigsegg-gemer...
| msla wrote:
| So a gigantic engine can make horsepower. Is 600 horsepower a
| lot?
| eyegor wrote:
| This is really cool, but estimating 280HP at 2L when naturally
| aspirated has already been beaten. The party trick here is
| definitely the pneumatic valve control being able to switch
| combustion cycles on the fly. If you just want max power per
| liter, Nissan's 3 cyl from 2014 claims 400HP at 1.5L [0]. I'm
| guessing this high-output small engine tech will never come down
| to the consumer level since they all rev at 7-8k rpm. If there
| was a way to build a 3cyl SUV, I'm sure someone would have done
| it by now.
|
| [0] https://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/28/nissan-three-cylinder-
| ra...
| perl4ever wrote:
| "If there was a way to build a 3cyl SUV, I'm sure someone would
| have done it by now."
|
| Ford's new Escape has a 1.5L turbo I-3 on the base model.
|
| And Ford also used to have a 1.0L turbo I-3 in some models of
| Fiesta and/or Focus, although it was kind of obscure and may
| have only come with a manual transmission (in the US).
| VoxPelli wrote:
| Here's a 3-cylinder SUV from that other Swedish car
| manufacturer: https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-
| cars/volvo-adds-t3-th...
|
| Also, the first Freevalve engine to be put presented in a car
| was in a normal sedan from a Chinese manufacturer:
| https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1107384_1-6-liter-camles...
| peter_d_sherman wrote:
| How many watts of electricity could this make, if it were removed
| from the car, and made to power an electric generator?
|
| Would there be any efficiencies compared to say, an ordinary
| gasoline piston engine with a camshaft, driving that generator?
|
| I'm guessing yes... which leads to the next question:
|
| Would a diesel motor (again, to drive a generator) be more
| effective than this one which uses gasoline?
|
| Why or why not?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-03-14 23:00 UTC)